Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj Etc. on 24 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique Identification no. 02403R0160912004
Case no. RBT519/I dated 14.05.2013
FIR No. 569/99
PSNew
State Vs Suraj etc.
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT519/I dated 14.05.2013
Date of Commission : 20.09.1999
of offence
Name of Complainant : Dr. Kamal Singh
Name and address : 1. Suraj S/o Sh.Sher Singh,
of accused R/o House No.4, Mashi Garh,
Opp. Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.Phool Singh,
R/o C396, Old Seemapuri,
Delhi110095.
3. Munna Singh S/o Sh.Bindeshwari Singh,
R/o Geetanjali Park, New Delhi.
(Declared PO vide order dated 22.2.2008)
4. Tang Raj S/o Sh.Chinna Govindan,
R/o House No.42, Mashi Garhi,
Opp. Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
5. Ram Rikh S/o Sh.Ram Phal,
R/o House No.118, Wazirpur Village,
Delhi110052.
FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 1 of 16
2
6. Smt.Shakuntla Devi W/o Sh.Veer Singh,
R/o House NO.22, Mashi Garh,
Opp. Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
7. Smt.Veermati W/o Sh.Ram Rikh,
R/o House No.118, Wazirpur Village,
Delhi110052.
8. Veer Singh S/o Late Sh.Ram Parshad,
R/o House No.22, Mashi Garh,
Opp. Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
9. Ram Parshad S/o Sh.Bakshi,
R/o House No.22, Mashi Garh,
Opp. Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
(proceedings abated against accused Ram
Parshad vide order dated 13.1.2004).
Offence Complained : U/s. 147/148/149/186/332/353 IPC and
U/s 3 of Prevention of Damages of Public
Property Act
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 23.09.2014
Date of judgment : 24.09.2014
Final order : Acquitted.
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.9.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. on road, in front of House No.22, Mashi Garh, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi, all accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly committed rioting and restrained the work of public servant and obstructed public servant in discharge of their public duty by assaulting and use of criminal force and also caused mischief and damaged public property by throwing stones etc. and caused damages to JCB FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 2 of 16 3 loader.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the court against all accused persons. Accused Ram Parshad had expired and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 13.1.2004 and accused Munna was declared PO vide order dated 22.2.2008. Remaining accused persons appeared and they were supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.42010, notice for the offence punishable u/s 147/148/149/186/332/353 IPC read with section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act was served upon the accused no.1, 2 and 4 to 9, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Sh.K.D. Sharma, who was employee of MCD and a member of demolition team, was examined as PW1, Dr. Kamal Singh, who was the complainant and a member of demolition team, was examined as PW2, Sh.K.D. Akolia, who filed complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. before the court, was examined as PW3, Sh.Harender Singh, who was also employee of MCD and a member of demolition team, was examined as PW4, Sh.Satyavir Singh, who was also employee of MCD and a member of demolition team, was examined as PW5, Sh.Raja Kumar, who was also employee of MCD and a member of demolition team, was examined as PW6, HC Rajender Singh, who was present at the site of demolition for police arrangement and got injured in the incident, was examined as PW7, Ct. Partap Singh, who was also present at the site of demolition for FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 3 of 16 4 police arrangement, was examined as PW8, Ct. Dinesh, who was also present at the site of demolition for police arrangement and apprehended accused persons with help of other police personnels, was examined as PW9, HC Virender Singh, who was present at the site of incident for police arrangement, was examined as PW10, Ct. Pradeep Kumar, who was also present at the site of incident for police arrangement and got injured, was examined as PW11, HC Kiran Pal, who was at the site of incident for police arrangement and took the rukka to police station and got registration of FIR, was examined as PW12, HC Deep Chand, who was also present at the site of incident for police arrangement and got injured, was examined as PW13, ASI Tej Singh, who was also present at the site of incident for police arrangement, was examined PW14. During prosecution evidence, following documents were exhibited:
(i) Complaint to the police Ex.PW2/A
(ii) Seizure memo of stones, brick and glass Ex.PW2/B
(iii) Complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/A
(iv) Seizure memo of JCD loader Ex.PW12/A
4. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31.7.2014 wherein he denied the deposition of witnesses against him being false & interested witnesses. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully.
6. As per the prosecution story, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW9 and PW10 are material witnesses, therefore, their depositions are being discussed FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 4 of 16 5 here. PW2 Dr. Kamal Singh deposed that on 20.9.1999, he was posted as Dy. Director in Horticulture Department, MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar. On that day, he alongwith his Section Officers namely Satbir Singh, Harinder Singh, K.D. Sharma and other staff of Horticulture Department went to demolish the encroachment from the House No.22, Mashi Garh as per the order of Hon'ble High Court and the report was to be submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22.9.1999. Sh.O.P. Balwani, the then Assistant Commissioner of MCD and Sh.S. Chauhan, LaI and other staff went to P.P. Sukhdev Vihar and police staff were taken for protection and they reached the spot i.e. House No.22, Mashigarh at about 12.40 p.m. JCB loader and truck were also taken to the spot. PW1 further deposed that on seeing MCD staff, police staff and staff to remove the encroachment, people (200 including 2530 female) were gathered at the spot. Accused Ram Parshad and Bir Singh were ahead of the mob. PW1 further deposed that he had informed the Ram Parshad and Bir Singh regarding the demolition of their house as per the order of Hon'ble High Court order and he requested them not to obstruct in the demolition drive and government duty. PW1 further deposed that accused Ram Parshad and Bir Singh alongwith the mob were standing in front of the house and started slogans "Makaan Ko Nahi Todne Denge." Police gave instructions to the mob not to obstruct in government duty and dispersed the mob. At the same time, people started pelting stones, empty bottles and bricks on the police force and MCD staff. Some people threw stones, empty bottles and bricks from the roof of their house. Due to this, police staff and FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 5 of 16 6 MCD staff got injuries and the front glass of JCB loader was broken. Thereafter the police dispersed the mob. PW1 further deposed that he could not identify the accused persons. He gave written complaint to the police Ex.PW2/A, which bore his siganture at point 'A'. IO did not prepare the site plan at his instance. He could not say whether the police seized any stones, bricks and pieces of glass. Ld. APP for State after seeking permission of the court crossexamined the PW1 as he resiled from his earlier statement. In the crossexamination done by Ld. APP for State, PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused persons namely Ramrig, Tang Raj, Vinod Kumar, Munna Singh, Suraj, Sakuntala, Birwati and Bir Singh were apprehended by the police and they were pelting the stones, bricks and empty bottles on the police force and MCD staff. He further denied that IO seized the pieces of stones, brick and glass. However, PW2 admitted that Ex.PW2/B, which is seizure memo of bricks, stones and pieces of glass, bore his signature at point 'A'.
7. PW2 deposed in his crossexamination done by Ld. Defence Counsel that Licencing Department of MCD was authorized for carrying demolition. The demolition drive at the spot was carried on 20.9.1999 in pursuance of order of Hon'ble High Court. PW2 failed to bring the order of Hon'ble High Court in his evidence. PW2 deposed that he had tried to enquire with MCD about the said order. He voluntarily deposed that he had intimated to Mr. K.D. Sharma regarding the same order. PW2 further deposed that they had not carried out demarcation.
However, demarcation was carried out by concerned Patwari. He voluntarily
FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 6 of 16
7
deposed at the time of survey, his section officer Sh.Satbir Singh was present. PW2 denied the suggestion that there was no order of Hon'ble High Court for demolition. PW2 deposed that he alognwith Satbir Singh, Harinder Singh, O.P. Balwani, K.D. Sharma and other local MCD staff of 25 members left at around 11.00 a.m. from his office at MCD, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He reached between 12.00 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. at the site of demolition. He did not go to police station on the said date. He voluntarily deposed that he went to police station with the Assistant Commissioner Sh.O.P. Banwali. Approximately 6070 police persons were provided. JCD loader was provided by Sh.O.P. Balwani, Asstt. Commissioner of MCD. Removal of encroachment on the basis of demarcation land by surveyor only.
8. PW3 Sh.K.D. Akola deposed that on 17.1.2000, he was working and posted as Deputy Commissioner, MCD Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar. After going through the reports of his officials, copy of FIR and official file, he filed the formal complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. before the court Ex.PW3/A, which bore his signature at point 'A'. PW3 deposed in his crossexamination that that he had gone through the complaint before signing. PW3 denied the suggestion that there was no order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to demolish the property in the area. During evidence of PW3, copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 2.8.1999 was produced by Assistant Director, SDMC Sh.S.P. Meena as Mark X1. PW3 admitted that there was no order to demolish House No.22, Mashigarh. PW3 voluntarily deposed that the order was to clear the Khasra No.162 of FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 7 of 16 8 encroachment.
9. PW4 Sh.Harender Singh deposed that in the year 199899, he was posted as Section Officer (Horticulture), MCD and their office was situated in Lajpat Nagar. He further deposed that in the year 199899, he alongwith Deputy Director Dr. Kamal Singh went to Sukhdev Vihar for demolition. Sh.K.D. Sharma and Sh.Satbir Singh were also accompanying them. They carried out demolition and return back to their office. PW4 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State after seeking permission of the court. In the crossexamination done by Ld. APP for State, PW4 denied the suggestion that on 20.9.1999, he alongwith Dr. Kamal Singh and other staff of MCD went to P.P. Sukhdev Vihar and they took the protection from the concerned police for demolition of House No.22, Mashigarh, Sukhdev Vihar by the order of Hon'ble High Court. He further denied that on the same day at around 12.40 p.m., they reached at the spot and public persons gathered at the spot. He further denied that they intimated Ram Parshad and Bir Singh for demolition of their houses by the order of Hon'ble High Court and they alongwith other persons prevented them to demolish the said houses. He further denied that the said accused persons alongwith other persons pelted stones to the police and MCD staff. He further denied that the police officials and MCD staff sustained injuries and the public property was also damaged. He further denied that the police officials apprehended the accused Ram Rig, Tang Raj, Vinod Kumar, Munna Singh, Suraj, Shakuntla and Veerwati at the spot who were pelting stones on the police officials and MCD staff. He further denied that IO recorded FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 8 of 16 9 his statement.
10. PW6 Sh.Raja Kumar deposed that he did not remember anything regarding this case. PW6 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State after seeking permission of the court. In the crossexamination done by Ld. APP for State, PW6 admitted that in the year 1999, he was working as gardener in M.C. Deptt. at Lajpat Nagar circle. PW6 further deposed that on 20.9.1999, he alongwith his MCD officials went to House no.22, Mashigarh, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. He admitted that police personnels also accompanied them. He further admitted that the public persons were gathered in front of the said house. PW6 denied that Ram Parshad and Veer Singh, the owner of the said house, were present at the spot. He admitted that they were having High Court order for demolition of the same. He denied that the MCD officials intimated the owner of the said house regarding the order of Hon'ble High Court. He admitted that the persons who were gathered at the spot were pelting stones on the MCD staff and the vehicles. 2 or 3 labourers sustained injuries at the spot. PW6 denied that police personnel apprehended five male and two female persons at the spot. PW6 deposed that he could not identify the accused persons because he had not seen them at the spot. PW6 did not identify the accused persons even when pointed out by Ld. APP for State. PW6 deposed in his crossexamination done by Ld. Defence Counsel that he did not remember the date of the incident. He did not remember the name of the officials who went with him. He did not remember the date and contents of the High Court order. He did not remember the house number, however, they went FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 9 of 16 10 to Mashigarh. He denied that there was no stone pelting.
11. PW9 Ct. Dinesh deposed that on 20.09.1999, he was posted at P.P. Sukhdev Vihar under P.S. New Friends Colony. On that day, MCD officials came to the P.P. Sukhdev Vihar to take assistance of the police and MCD officials told that they had to do demolition at House No.22, Mashigarh, New Delhi. Upon their request, he alongwith SI Anil Malik and other police staff alongwith MCD staff went to House No.22, Mashigarh, New Delhi, where owner of the house Ram Parshad and Veer Singh were present with 200/250 public persons including 25/30 ladies. PW9 further deposed that they told Ram Parshad that demolition work had to take place by the order of Hon'ble High Court. After that MCD staff started the demolition work, meanwhile, agitation was started and public persons started pelting stones. Due to that, MCD officials and police officials received injuries. PW9 further deposed that the persons who pelting stones were Suraj, Tang Raj, Veer Singh, Ram Rikh, Veermati and Shakuntla and other 12 persons. They apprehended those persons. PW9 correctly identified all accused persons except accused Vinod Kumar. PW9 deposed that he did not recollect the face of Vinod Kumar due to lapse of the time. PW9 deposed in his crossexamination that he did not remember the names of the MCD officials, even their respective designations. MCD officials came to the police post Sukhdev Vihar at around 10.00 / 10.30 a.m. The MCD officials told SI Anil Malik about the demolition work and they were briefed by SI Anil Malik about the demolition. PW9 further deposed that he had not read the order of Hon'ble High Court in respect of the FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 10 of 16 11 demolition in House No.22, however, it was shown to the Ram Parshad and Veer Singh. PW9 denied the suggestion that Hon'ble High Court had not passed any order in respect of the demolition of House No.22. PW9 further deposed that he had seen the accused persons at the time of the demolition. He remained post in P.P. Sukhdev Vihar for about one year. He was beat constable of the area of DDA Flats. He knew the accused persons with their faces prior to demolition. PW9 further deposed that Ct. Deep Chand, driver of the JCB and other persons received injury. He did not remember the name of the other persons. Ct. Deep Chand was posted at P.P. Sukhdev Vihar at that time. Ct. Kiran Pal was the beat constable of the area concerned where demolition was carried out.
12. PW10 HC Virender Singh deposed that on 20.09.1999, he was posted as Ct. in PS NFC. On that day, several staff from MCD had come to Masihgarh for a demolition. He alongwith other staff was also present there under the police arrangement to facilitate the said demolition. The owners of the houses whose houses were to be demolished opposed the said demolition. Police officials and MCD officials had tried to make understand them. There was a huge gathering of public persons. PW10 further deposed that the owner and their supporters had started shouting and thereafter they started pelting stones. Due to said, he and several other police and MCD officials had received injuries. They went to hospital for medical examination. IO had recorded his statement. PW10 further deposed that some persons who had pelted stones namely Ram Prasad, Suraj, Vinod, Tangraj, Veermati and Shakuntala etc. were arrested. PW10 identified the FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 11 of 16 12 said persons in the court. PW10 deposed in his crossexamination that on that day, he proceeded for spot from PS between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Chitha Munshi informed him to reach at Sukhdev Vihar PP for arrangement of demolition. He was not heading the team. PW10 further deposed that he did not know if MCD staff had visited the PS on that day. He made an entry in PP Sukhdev Vihar. MCD staff had started with them from PP Sukhdev Vihar. He did not count the number of MCD staff officials. PW10 further deposed that when he reached the spot, he had seen a huge gathering of public persons, officials of MCD and police officials. When he reached the spot, the demolition was not started till that time. When he reached the spot, MCD officials and police officials were trying to understand the owner of the houses and their supporters. 1012 officials from MCD and police had received the injuries but he did not remember the exact figure. He proceeded for hospital for treatment at about 01:00 p.m. Some injured had gone in the hospital alongwith him in same vehicle and other injured had reached to hospital by several other vehicles. He was discharged on same day after getting treatment. PW10 also identified accused Ram Parshad in the court and deposed that he could identify him by face and he was the owner of the building. He further deposed that his statement was recorded on same day when incident took place. He did not remember where his statement was recorded either in PS or PP.
13. According to prosecution story, Dr. Kamal Singh who was Dy. Director in Horticulture Department in MCD, New Delhi was present at the spot at FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 12 of 16 13 the time of incident and also made a complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police, on the basis of which, the present case was registered. However, PW2 deposed that he could not identify the accused persons. He further deposed that IO did not prepare the site plan at his instance and he could not say whether the police seized any stone, brick or pieces of glass. PW2 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State as he resiled from his earlier statement i.e. complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW2 denied the suggestion that the accused persons namely Ram Rikh, Tang Raj, Vinod Kumar, Munna Singh, Suraj, Shakuntla, Veermati and Bir Singh were apprehended by the police and they were pelting stones, bricks and empty bottles on the police force and MCD staff. PW2 is a very crucial witness for the prosecution but as he could not identify the accused persons and also denied the suggestion that they pelted stones, bricks and empty bottles on the police force and MCD staff has weakened the case of the prosecution. PW3 who made formal complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. before the court admitted a suggestion that there was no order to demolish house no.22, Mashi Garh. He voluntarily deposed that the order was to clear Khasra No. 162 of encroachment. The deposition of PW3 that there was no order to demolish house no.22, Mashi Garh is contradictory to the case of the prosecution as the whole case of the prosecution based that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 20.9.1999 had directed to demolish House No.22, Mashi Garh. Even this has been stated in complaint Ex.PW2/A. The question arises if there was no order to demolish House No.22, Mashi Garh, then, why the MCD and police force reached there to carry out demolition. It has further raised doubts in the story of FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 13 of 16 14 the prosecution.
14. PW4, who was working as Section Officer (Horticulture) in MCD and present at the spot according to prosecution story, turned hostile and denied the suggestion that the accused persons alongwith other persons pelted stones to the police and MCD staff. PW5 has only identified one accused Bir Singh, but he could not identify remaining accused persons. PW5 has also not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that he could not say whether police arrested the accused persons at the spot. PW6 also turned hostile and he failed to identify the accused persons. PW6 even deposed that he could not identify the accused persons because he had not seen them at the spot. PW6 also denied the suggestion that IO recorded his statement. PW7 and PW8 have also failed to identify the accused persons. PW9 had identified the accused persons and supported the case of the prosecution to certain extent, however, he deposed that he knew the accused persons with their faces prior to the demolition as he remained posted in Police Post Sukhdev Vihar for about one year and was beat constable of the area at DDA flats. As PW9 knew the accused persons prior to the date of incident, therefore, his identification of the accused persons raises doubt. It is also important to mention here that all the witnesses from MCD have turned hostile and some of the police witnesses have also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. There are also contradictions in the depositions of PW9 and PW10. PW11 deposed that he had not told the name of any person who were pelting stones. PW11 had identified the accused Ram FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 14 of 16 15 Parshad in the court, however, accused Ram Parshad was already expired, thus, PW11 identified somebody else as accused Ram Parshad. It has further weakened the case of the prosecution. PW12 deposed that all the accused persons were apprehended at the spot by the police, however, all the accused were not arrested from the spot and some of them were arrested after the incident even after more than one month from the date of incident. It further raises doubts in the story of the prosecution. PW13 deposed that he had heard the words of MCD staff who pronounced the order of the Hon'ble High Court that there was a demolition order to demolition house no.22, Mashi Garh. None of the MCD staff, who were examined in this case, deposed that any words were spoken/pronounced by any of them that there was a demolition order to demolition house no.22, Mashi Garh. PW13 deposed that there was no order of demolition of house no.22, Mashi Garh. PW14 deposed that he could not specifically identify accused Ram Rikh amongst the accused persons due to lapse of time. PW14 further deposed that he could not identify the accused persons by their names due to lapse of time. Thus, the deposition of PW14 further raises doubts that the accused persons were involved in the incident in question.
15. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts the charge for offences u/s 147/148/149/186/332/353 IPC and U/s 3 of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act against the accused persons namely Suraj, Vinod Kumar, Tang Raj, Ram Rikh, Shakuntla Devi, Veermati and Veer Singh. It is well settled law that FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 15 of 16 16 benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.
16. Accordingly, accused persons namely Suraj, Vinod Kumar, Tang Raj, Ram Rikh, Shakuntla Devi, Veermati and Veer Singh are acquitted from the charges of offence u/s 147/148/149/186/332/353 IPC and U/s 3 of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 24.09.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/24.09.2014
FIR No. 569/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Suraj etc. 16 of 16